Facts: On November 22, 1989, Alexander was charged with (1) violation of Dangerous Drugs Act and (2)

violation for illegal possession of firearms before the RTC of Zamboanga City. Appellant with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on the above charges. Thereafter, the two cases were jointly tried on the merits upon agreement of the parties. The facts of the case as summarized in the Peoples brief are as f ollows: On October 27, 1989, after receiving information that appellant was engaged in the sale of shabu at his residence at the Bureau of Air Transportation (BAT) Compound, Zamboanga City, NBI Agent Bienvenido Salvo directed his asset or confidential informer Edgar Pelin to purchase from appellant P200.00 worth of prohibited drug. Pelin succeeded in purchasing from appellant a specimen which Agent Salvo sent the next day to the NBI chemist in Cebu who, after a laboratory examination, determined that it was indeed shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. Immediately there-after, Agent Salvo returned to Zamboanga City to map out a buy-bust operation against appellant. The buy-bust operation was set up by the NBI Regional Office with the assistance of the Zamboanga City Police. Agent Salvo likewise obtained a search warrant for this operation. Pelin would act as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation. Agent Salvo gave Pelin P200.00 in marked money for the purchase of the shabu. Pelin gave the marked P200.00 to appellant who in turn gave him a deck of shabu which was wrapped in aluminum foil. The transaction concluded, Pelin signalled to his companions by going out of appellants house. The search team led by Agent Salvo then rushed forward and entered appellants house while the rest of the raid party secured the area. Pelin turned over the deck of shabu to the NBI custodian who marked the aluminum foil wrapper with the initials AMM. Simultaneously, Agent Salvo presented a copy of the search warrant to appellant and thereafter the search team conducted a search of the premises. The search team recovered drug paraphernalia from various places in appellants house. However, only P100.00 of the marked money was recovered by the team. Captain Maruji and Agent Salvo also recovered a .38 caliber paltik revolver containing five live ammunition inside a pillowcase in appellants bedroom. The search team made a three-page inventory of the things seized at the appellaSnts house. Said inventory was signed by appellant and a copy thereof was furnished him. The defense presented accused-appellant, his wife Dolores Martinez, Angelina Martinez and Bonifacio Leyte. Said witnesses presented a totally different version of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of appellant and the consequent charges against him. Appellants version purports to show that at about 1:00 P.M. of November 6, 1989 he was at home watching television, and slept at about 1:20 pm. He claims to have been awakened by two persons kicking him whom he identified as prosecution witnesses Salvo and Pelin. All told, appellant denies having sold shabu to Pelin nor owning the .38 caliber revolver allegedly found in his room. At the NBI Office, appellant was allegedly forced to sign an inventory of the seized articles under the threat of summary execution. The testimonies of the other defense witnesses, on the other hand, generally corroborated appellants testimony. After trial, the c ourt a quo rendered its decision finding accused guilty for violation of DDA and illegal possession of firearms. In this appeal, accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors: 1. The shabu was not identified by Pelin- It was identified by the NBI Medical Lab person and by Pelin 2. The marked money was not presented as evidence- The allegation of the appellant that the marked money was not properly identified by the poseur-buyer does not deserve even a passing consideration. As long as the prohibited or regulated drug given or delivered by the appellant was presented before the court and the appellant was clearly identified as the offender, conviction is proper. 3. Appellant reproves the prosecution for the variance between the testimony of Captain Maruji as to the firearm seized and that actually presented during the trial. It should be remembered, however, that what the law punishes is the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm regardless of make, model, or kind. That an unlicensed firearm was seized from the house of appellant is undisputed, and this is more than adequate for appellants conviction. ***4. Finally, accused-appellant argues that he is not the person named in the search warrant issued in connection with the buybust operation, his name being Abelardo Martinez and not Alexander Martinez. That being the case, all things seized by virtue of the said warrant are inadmissible in evidence. Issue: WON RTC erred in admitting the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrant.-NO Held: The discrepancy regarding the name of accused-appellant and that stated in the search warrant cannot militate against his positive identification by the poseur-buyer. It has been consistently held that greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than accuseds denial concerning the commission of the crime. The claim of the accused that his true and correct name is not Alexander Martinez but Abelardo Martinez does not deviate from the fact of his identity being established as a peddler of shabu. Even granting arguendo that his claim is correct that he is not Alexander but Abelardo, that alone does not warrant dismissal or absolving the accused of criminal liability. Sec. 7, Rule 110 of the 1988 Rules on Criminal procedure, as amended, provides: A complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known, or if his name cannot be discovered he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown. If in the course of the proceeding the true name of the accused is disclosed by him, or appears in some other manner to the court, the true name of the accused shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. Granting arguendo that the search warrant issued against accused-appellant was invalid because his true name is Abelardo Martinez and not Alexander Martinez as stated in the search warrant, the same cannot render the articles seized inadmissible as evidence in court. As a matter of fact the information filed identify him as Alexander Martinez alias Abelardo Martinez y Montesor, accused.

The accused-appellant was arrested as a result of a buy-bust operation and the ensuing search of the premises was made as an incident to a lawful arrest. It is therefore clear that regardless of the alleged defect of the search warrant in erroneously designating his first name, the seized articles may still be used as evidence against accused-appellant, having been obtained from him and as such, fruits of a lawful search incidental to a valid arrest. Furthermore, appellant was arraigned under the name of Alexander Martinez and when arraigned under said name he entered his plea of not guilty. Appellant should have raised the question of his identity either at the time of arraignment or by filing a demurrer based on the courts lack of jurisdiction over his person, inasmuch as he was then considered as Alexander Martinez alias Abelardo Martinez. Having failed to do so, he is estopped from later raising the same question. His identity had been sufficiently established. Finally, the identification of a person is not established solely through knowledge of the name of that person. It is clear from the records that appellant was the same person who sold the prohibited drug to Pelin on two instances. The claim therefore that his true and correct name is Abelardo Martinez and not Alexander Martinez cannot overturn the fact of his identity being established as the peddler of shabu, a prohibited drug.